Translate

Friday, October 31, 2008

An abbreviated State Capitol Roundup courtesy of state Rep. Bob Mensch, R-147th Dist. (Hey, it's an election year and most of our legislators are stumping for last-minute votes.)

Smith Continues Call for Fiscal Constraint

While the administration is just now reacting to the state's financial slowdown, House Republicans have led the way by reducing caucus expenses by more than 10 percent in each of the last three years. House Republican Leader Sam Smith called the governor's announcement Thursday that he was cutting $311 million from the state's $28 billion budget "a good beginning" but stressed the need to do more. He reiterated the call for immediate budget meetings to get a better handle on the state's finances and protect taxpayers. The state Department of Revenue reports revenue collections are nearly $300 million behind estimates for the first quarter of the 2008-09 fiscal year.

Heating Assistance Program Opens Soon

Pennsylvania's Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) opens Nov. 3 to help residents struggling to pay home-heating costs this season. Income eligibility for 2008-09 was expanded to 210 percent of the Federal Poverty Income Guideline, allowing an additional 80,000 Pennsylvanians to be eligible for assistance. This year, a family of four earning up to $44,443 annually can qualify for help with their heating bills or emergency heating equipment needs. People do not need to have unpaid bills in order to receive energy assistance, and they can receive this assistance without being on welfare. For more information, or to apply, contact the local county assistance office, call the LIHEAP hotline at 1-866-857-7095 or visit www.RepMensch.com

The Associated Press is keeping track of newspaper endorsements in the presidential race. Here is a sampling of endorsements for John McCain:

The (Winter Haven, Fla.) News Chief:

"Barack Obama is a man of great appeal, rhetorical flourishes, little political experience and left-leaning tendencies. In contrast, John McCain is far less eloquent, but he's experienced, he's proven in a fight and he's on target on important U.S. policies regarding taxes, spending, trade, energy and national security.

"Given the choice, we much prefer substance over style and experience over risky idealism. We prefer and recommend John McCain for president of the United States."

The (Lynchburg, Va.) News & Advance:

"With the economic and foreign policy crises looming in wait for the next occupant of the White House, it is McCain's bipartisan, common-sense approach to problem-solving that this nation needs. Challenges such as Iraq, the global financial crisis and the war on terror demand a leader who has the ability to reach across the ideological divide in Washington. Only John McCain has that track record as a national leader."

The (Oklahoma City) Oklahoman:

"McCain would hold the line on taxes, freeze most government spending and trust Americans' ingenuity to revive the faltering economy. He would nominate judges to the courts who respect the difference between the legislative and judicial functions. He would correct many of the mistakes of the past eight years and provide a valuable check for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

"Yet in a sense, all are secondary to the unique obligation a president bears to provide crisis leadership. McCain is older and, we think, wiser in the ways of the world. He has seen much more of it than his younger opponent. His real-world experience goes beyond the world of politics. He has seen evil up close and knows the horror of war."

The Knoxville (Tenn.) News Sentinel:

"Barack Obama and John McCain are both good men. Either would be a worthy president of the United States. ...

"An Obama election would create a mandate-bearing, one-party government, not necessarily a good thing in recent United States history. The hubris of Republican rule during Bush II or Democratic rule during the Johnson administration are scary precedents.

"The importance of maintaining the checks and balances of divided government is, in the end, the best argument for John McCain.

The (Fort Smith, Ark.) Southwest Times Record:

"In the end, we believe McCain not only has the experience but the mettle and resolve to do what is right for America. We do not believe Obama hangs around with terrorists or that he has socialistic policies or that he shuns the Bible or the flag or the national anthem or that he is dangerous or sinister or that he is anything but a fine individual who would put the nation first. We just happen to believe that between the two of them, John McCain is the better candidate, particularly at this extraordinary juncture in our nation's history, and we support his candidacy for president of the United States."

The Lawrence (Kan.) Journal-World:

"McCain says if he is elected, he will crack down, demand performance and change the way elected officials carry out their responsibilities. He believes our system of government is the best in the world, and his call for "change" refers to preserving and strengthening this system, to clean and correct the abuses, not change our historic system of government. Free enterprise, capitalism, the limited role of government in the lives of Americans, the right for secret votes on matters such as union representation, a tax schedule that encourages growth and private ownership, all are important.

"He has made it clear that if he is elected, changes will be made in Washington."

The Cecil Whig of Elkton, Md.:

"At this crossroads to the future, we believe the choice is clear. In one direction lies inexperience, uncertainty, and bigger government as a 'solution' to our problems. The other road is just as difficult, but the man to take us down it has a proven record of leadership and good judgment, of a steady hand on the wheel. That man is John McCain."

From an editorial in the National Review endorsing John McCain for president.

McCain has a solid record of opposing economically damaging tax increases. He has always opposed abortion. He has advanced a creative free-market health-care policy, even if he has not done much to defend it against Obama's dishonest attacks. He is a scourge of wasteful spending and a resolute free trader. He says that he will look for judges who have demonstrated their fidelity to the Constitution as written. ...

Rich Lowry, writing at National Review Online, says Obama's "tax cut" plan is actually one of the biggest government welfare programs ever introduced.

Obama's plan wouldn't, like cuts in marginal tax rates, increase the incentive to work, invest or save. In fact, the opposite. As tax credits phase out, they increase marginal tax rates. But for Obama, his plan is a matter of justice rather than economics.

When in a Democratic primary debate Charlie Gibson of ABC News pointed out to Obama that increasing the capital-gains rate in the past has initially reduced revenue, Obama replied that he wanted the increase "forpurposes of fairness." ...

But Obama's tax program pursues a foolhardy goal -- redistribution for its own sake -- in an unworkable manner. As Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute has written, between his tax credits and other proposals, Obama is seeking to balance some $4.3 trillion of new spending over the next 10 years on the top 5 percent of earners. ...

No, I'm not talking about the race for the White House. Nor am I talking about the Congressional or state House and Senate races. I'm talking about the "Water and Sewer Improvements Bond Referendum."

I know, I know, it's not the kind of election stuff you find on the front page of newspapers, but how you vote will determine whether or not you will put your children and my children further into debt.

Right now, the average citizen in Pennsylvania has a state and local government debt burden of nearly $9,000. But our politicians in Harrisburg want to add more to the $110 billion you already owe. $400 million more.

Here's the question you'll see on the ballot:

Do you favor the incurring of indebtedness by the Commonwealth of $400,000,000 for grants and loans to municipalities and public utilities for the cost of all labor, materials, necessary operational machinery and equipment, lands, property, rights and easements, plans and specifications, surveys, estimates of costs and revenues, prefeasibility studies, engineering and legal services and all other expenses necessary or incident to the acquisition, construction, improvement, expansion, extension, repair or rehabilitation of all or part of drinking water system, storm water, nonpoint source projects, nutrient credits and wastewater treatment system projects?

Most likely, voters will overwhelmingly approve this measure, just as they have in the past. Whether it was the $625 million for Growing Greener II in 2005 or the $20 million bond issue to compensate Persian Gulf veterans in 2006, voters don't seem to have much trouble allowing lawmakers to put us further into debt.

Of course, Governor Rendell and the General Assembly are OK with asking you for approval of more spending on questions like "Do you want clean water?" or "Do you support the troops?" Who can vote against those things?

But those same politicians never ask you if we want to go into massive bonded debt to pay $45 million for a soccer stadium in Chester, $35 million for a baseball stadium in Lackawanna County, $250 million for a cargo airport in Hazle Township, $12.5 million for a 200-room lodge in Tioga County, or a slew of other pork barrel projects. They just do it, like they did to pay for these projects last July — when they borrowed over $3 billion on the taxpayers’ credit card.

Citizens should rightly wonder why they are not given the opportunity to vote "YES" or "NO" on bonded debt for corporate welfare and other pork barrel projects, and are only asked about bonds for municipal water and sewer projects — a generally accepted responsibility of government. Politicians don't ask because they already know the answer to the former and they can pass the buck on the latter.

You should also know that there’s some fine print that doesn't appear at the bottom of the ballot question. That $400 million debt is really closer to $621 million. Just like any other loan, taxpayers will have to pay back both the principal and the interest over a 20-year period for this new bonded debt.

Our calculations at the Commonwealth Foundation suggest that — after all the debt is issued ($11.2 million and $23.1 million in 2009-10 and 2010-11, respectively) — the annual taxpayer costs for the next two decades for just this ballot issue will be approximately $31 million.

For the average family of four in Pennsylvania, their share will be another $130 in new debt payments which will be paid back with General Fund revenues (i.e. state income, sales, and business taxes). That may not sound like a lot, but when you add in the debt service for the other $110 billion in outstanding debt we're beginning to talk about some real money. Furthermore, given that Pennsylvania is already facing a budget shortfall — some lawmakers estimate it to be as high as $3 billion by the fiscal year’s end — is now really the time to be adding another mandated cost to the taxpayers?

So how will you vote on November 4th? It is unfortunate that you didn't get to vote on the billions in pork-barrel debt you've already been strapped with, but next Tuesday you will get to decide if you can afford another spending program. For you, that's the $400 million question.

Matthew J. Brouillette is president and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation (www.CommonwealthFoundation.org), a public policy research and educational institute located in Harrisburg.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Most people have a campaign sign or two on their lawn, but this Berks County homeowner has put a lot more work in her display, decorating her front yard with life-size cardboard cut-outs of candidates and other assorted characters. The woman behind the display is Reading-area artist Vickie Rhodier, whose political cartoons have been featured on this blog.

"Barack Obama would 'spread the wealth' as president, but until lately the Obamas were giving less than 1% of their own high incomes to the needy and neglecting even poverty-stricken blood relatives," says Investor's Business Daily, which has found another serious character flaw in the would-be president.

From an editorial in Investor's Business Daily:

Sen. Barack Obama is apparently quite a cheapskate when it comes to giving to charity. From 2001 to 2004, the tax returns for Mr. and Mrs. Ebenezer Obama show less than $8,500 in donations out of the nearly $1 million they made.

In 2005 and 2006, with book royalties making them millionaires, their charitable contributions rose to about 5% of income. But how "charitable" are some of the causes Obama supports? In 2006, for instance, he gave more than $20,000 to the notorious Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Imagine that. Giving tens of thousands of dollars to someone who preaches "not God Bless America; God damn America!" from the pulpit. It remains incomprehensible that John McCain chose not to hammer home Obama's close association with Wright. The Wright issue has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with radical ideology.

More than 500 rabbis, priests and pastors have called upon their peers in every Jewish and Christian congregation to pray this weekend for Barack Obama's "repentance" from his "Federal Sex Policies": same-sex unions, gay military integration, partial birth abortion and federal "sexual orientation" laws on churches and businesses.

Margaret Gibbons, who covered Montgomery County government and politics for the Norristown Times-Herald for decades, has left the newspaper for greener pastures.

She is now writing for The Intelligencer in Doylestown, but her beat remains the same Montgomery County government and politics.

In a recent column, Gibbons expresses concern about the mental health of embattled Montgomery County Commissioner Jim Matthews, who made a power-sharing deal with Democratic Commissioner Joe Hoeffel at the start of the year. That has brought widespread criticism of Matthews, who most consider a political turncoat.

From Gibbons' latest column:

Republican Montgomery County Commissioner Chairman James R. Matthews is beginning to show some cracks from the strain under which he has been operating since he entered that unprecedented power-sharing pact with Democratic Commissioner Joseph M. Hoeffel III.

Matthews had convinced himself that the controversy would die down in January and that he eventually would be lauded for his so-called “statesmanship” in fashioning a bipartisan government.

That has not happened.

The criticism from those within his own party has been relentless. And Republican Commissioner Bruce L. Castor Jr., the top vote-getter in last November's commissioners' election but the odd man out in this administration, never misses an opportunity to yank Matthews' chain.

In the past, Matthews has simply sloughed off Castor's comments or lectured him about his acting in a political fashion rather than as an elected government official who represents everyone.

However, now Matthews is verbally flinching even before Castor opens his mouth.

Matthews went off on Castor at a recent agenda meeting when Castor simply questioned something on the agenda.

Hundreds of polls have been taken in recent months and most show Barack Obama ahead in the presidential race, some by double digits.

The poll that came closest to predicting the 2004 presidential race between George W. Bush and John F. Kerry was the one produced by Investor's Business Daily (IBD)/TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics (TIPP).

The most recent IBD/TIPP Tracking Poll shows Barack Obama at 46.9% and John McCain at 43.9% with 9.2% undecided.

Investor's Business Daily has published a comprehensive timeline of "Why The Mortgage Crisis Happened" in today's edition. The article, originally posted at the American Thinker Web site, is long, but answers many questions about how Congressional leaders -- mostly Democrats -- failed the American public. Oh yeah, Barack Obama's name comes up, too.

From the introduction to the article by M. Jay Wells:

On the eve of what may be the most important election of our time, the financial catastrophe that many believe will most influence Tuesday's vote remains only partially covered by the major media. Though IBD has run many articles and editorials on the so-called mortgage meltdown, one of the most complete timelines of the debacle was written by an independent scholar and published this week by the Web magazine American Thinker. Because the issue is so important, we are running this 7,300-word history in its entirety.

This Letter to the Editor, originally published in The Mercury, is from state Rep. Curt Schroder of Chester County. Schroder says a recent policy change pushed by Gov. Ed Rendell, an Obama supporter, will create chaos at polling sites all over Pennsylvania.

State law prohibits "passive electioneering," which previously prevented voters from wearing clothing that depicted political candidates.

Now, polling site officials will be forced to take on the role of fashion police to determine appropriate attire before going into the voting booth.

'Anything goes' on Election Day

Traditionally, when you go to the polls to cast your votes on Election Day, you are bombarded by representatives of the various campaigns, doing last minute electioneering before you head into the polls to exercise one of your most sacred Constitutional rights.

Once inside, you were free of influence and able to cast your votes without interference. There were no advertisements, no campaign buttons, T-shirts or other apparel promoting one candidate over another. The atmosphere was uncluttered and you were there for one reason — to vote.

This year, however, the situation looks a lot different. Secretary of State Pedro Cortes, who oversees the state's election process, has bowed to pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the League of Women Voters who have threatened to sue the state in an effort to bring electioneering into the voting booth!

In a recent memo, Cortes gave the green light to "passive electioneering" at Pennsylvania polling places. Cortes said voters wearing campaign buttons and apparel should be permitted to vote, and cannot be made to remove political advertising. However, Cortes said it will be the responsibility of precinct election officials to make "judgment calls" about the appropriateness of the conduct of these individuals inside the polling place. I believe the subjective nature of these judgment calls makes his bad decision even worse and actually invites litigation.

According to the Pennsylvania Election Code, electioneering is not permitted inside polling places. The law makes no provision for "passive electioneering." This is a term created out of whole cloth by the Secretary.

In recent years, concerns about the integrity of the election process and reports of voting irregularities have cast a dark cloud over Election Day. This year, charges of fraudulent voter registration activity could do the same. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) is under investigation by the FBI for allegations of voter registration fraud in a number of states.

Cortes' decision continues a trend of "anything goes" deregulation of our registration and voting process. Partisan organizations will, at some point, attempt to push the envelope on behalf of their candidate. The resulting chaos could make Wall Street's upheaval seem tame by comparison.

A group of 357 leading American economists have issued a joint statement warning that Barack Obama's economic policies would be disastrous for the U.S. economy.

Here's is their statement, posted online, along with their names:

Barack Obama argues that his proposals to raise tax rates and halt international trade agreements would benefit the American economy. They would do nothing of the sort. Economic analysis and historical experience show that they would do the opposite. They would reduce economic growth and decrease the number of jobs in America. Moreover, with the credit crunch, the housing slump, and high energy prices weakening the U.S. economy, his proposals run a high risk of throwing the economy into a deep recession. It was exactly such misguided tax hikes and protectionism, enacted when the U.S. economy was weak in the early 1930s, that greatly increased the severity of the Great Depression.

We are very concerned with Barack Obama's opposition to trade agreements such as the pending one with Colombia, the new one with Central America, or the established one with Canada and Mexico. Exports from the United States to other countries create jobs for Americans. Imports make goods available to Americans at lower prices and are a particular benefit to families and individuals with low incomes. International trade is also a powerful source of strength in a weak economy. In the second quarter of this year, for example, increased international trade did far more to stimulate the U.S. economy than the federal government's "stimulus" package.

Ironically, rather than supporting international trade, Barack Obama is now proposing yet another so-called stimulus package, which would do very little to grow the economy. And his proposal to finance the package with higher taxes on oil would raise oil prices directly and by reducing exploration and production.

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

In sum, Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy. They defy both economic reason and economic experience.

A new study says at least 1.8 million dead people are registered to vote in the 2008 presidential election.

How many of those dead people vote is unknown ... except maybe to the folks at ACORN.

From an Aristotle International press release:

The study, conducted by Aristotle since 2000, compares government lists of persons who have moved or died to the voter registration lists obtained from state or county elections agencies. This year's data indicates 5.9 percent of all registered voters are what elections experts call "Deadwood." This represents an estimated 1,833,539 dead voters and 8,690,492 who have moved from their registered voter address.

Follow the link below to read more about the study, including a state-by-state breakdown of dead voters.

Chris Cox, writing in The Washington Times, says Barack Obama will go after gun owners if he's elected president. Legal gun owners, including hunters, will be targetted by the most anti-gun president ever.

So let's make sure we understand, as a society, our position if there is an overall Democratic victory in November's election.

1. No new energy exploitation/development --- at least in the areas of oil, coal or nuclear energy. Higher energy prices, correct?

2. A rise in corporate, income and Social Security taxes --- a great move if the economy is in a recession.

3. Continued, virtually uncontrolled immigration, especially of the illegal variety. This is obviously not a great way to raise the wages of the American workers but a great new source of new, eventually dependent Democratic voters.

4. The likelihood of withdrawal of federal funds to hospitals or medical institutions that refuse to provide abortion services --- seems like a great way to shut down Catholic and other religious hospitals that often serve less affluent constituencies.

It's getting crowded in the Obama closet of far left and radical associations. Despite earlier denials from the Obama campaign, the candidate has a long-standing relationship with Rashid Khalid, one-time PLO adviser.

If something sounds too good to be true, it usually is, says syndicated columnist Jay Ambrose. Take Barack Obama, the chosen one, the messiah, the agent of change.

From Abrose's latest column, in which he examines some chinks in Obama's armor:

Obama has played unending "kissy face" with the middle class, promising that something like 95 percent of us will get tax cuts, even as he has excoriated corporations, beaten up on CEOs and pledged to squeeze tens of billions a year from those who have the highest incomes. There are no significant spending cuts in all of this, meaning the budget deficit would balloon while some of his demagogic ideas could deliver body blows to the very people he pretends to adore.

Raise taxes on corporations, as he wants, and they become less competitive, they produce less, they hire fewer people and they raise prices that middle-class consumers pay. Raise capital-gains taxes and you lessen the values of stocks that have already plummeted disastrously, costing middle-class retirement plans trillions of dollars. Hit Big Oil with windfall profit penalties, and you weaken these firms, hurting people at the gas pump and increasing our energy peril.

Ah, but the man can take care of us because he is independent of special interests, he says as he simultaneously promises unions to renegotiate trade deals providing tens of thousands of jobs in the export business while keeping prices down on products the middle class purchases. He’s in bed with the ethanol industry, which is raising our food prices, and he voted for a budget-bloating, unnecessary farm subsidy bill that just happens to cripple third-world farmers who can’t then compete.

This supposed saint backed a surveillance bill he said he was against, went back on his word about accepting public finance, has told incredible lies about John McCain’s stances on immigration and Social Security, and has evaded any halfway workable proposal to deal with the coming entitlement crisis.

The Intelligencer in Doylestown has endorsed Republican Todd Stephens for the 151st state House seat currently held by freshman Democratic state Rep. Rick Taylor.

From the newspaper's endorsement:

You could hardly find two individuals with more divergent personalities: Taylor is soft-spoken, obviously good-hearted but who seems just a touch uncomfortable in his legislative role; Stephens, given his professional background, is more assertive and more confident.

There's certainly something to be said for Taylor's low-key approach to the job. But when it comes to standing up for the people of the district in regard to the major local issue — the eventual disposition of the Willow Grove Naval Air Station — we like Stephens' more aggressive nature. That goes for other issues as well, such as reform efforts in Harrisburg.

Like almost every state legislative race, this one features two competent candidates, and the election of one as opposed to the other will result in neither dramatic positive nor negative change. Taylor is focused on fighting for his constituents, as he puts it, and he's worked hard to that end. Our endorsement goes to Stephens, however; we think by nature he'll be a tougher fighter.

Attention first-time voters (and judging from the latest voter registration numbers in Pennsylvania), there are lots of you out there.

State officials are reminding first-time voters to bring property ID with them to their respective polling sites.

"Pennsylvania law requires voters to present identification the first time they go to the polls and if they have moved to a new polling place," says PA Secretary of State Pedro Cortes. "Any newly registered voter who shows up on Election Day without ID will be able to vote using a provisional ballot. However, this option should be a last resort."

The pundits are predicting the largest turnout for any presidential election in U.S. history.

Everyone is pushing a "get out the vote" campaign.

Everyone that is except John Stossel, the libertarian columnist and host of ABC's "20/20" program.

Stossel is saying publicly what many seasoned political observers believe privately: Some people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

"I suggested that when people don't know anything, maybe it's their civic duty not to vote," Stossel writes in a new column posted at Townhall.com

Uninformed voters (and there will be lots of them this year with ACORN signing up anyone with a pulse) should not be casting ballots because they don't know anything about candidate or important issues, Stossel argues.

"Voting is serious business. It works best when people educate themselves," Stossel writes. "If uninformed people stay home on Election Day, good."

You know how Barack Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax if he's elected?

The American Council for Capital Formation notes that the United States already has one of the highest capital gains tax rates in the world.

How will the U.S. compete if companies keep relocating to other countries to save on taxes?

Anybody in the liberal media want to ask Obama that question?

At a 15% long-term capital gains tax rate, the United States ranks higher than countries with lower, more competitive rates including Canada (14.5%), Italy (12.5%) and Japan (7%), according to ACCF. Many countries have a capital gains tax rate of zero (0%) including Germany, Mexico, India, Malaysia, Taiwan and Honk Kong, the council says.

"A low capital gains tax rate has an important role to play in fostering economic growth and playing on a competitive global economic field," said ACCF Senior Vice President and Chief Economist Margo Thorning. "The U.S. falls far short when compared to many other countries and stands to be at even greater international disadvantage if capital gains tax rates are increased once the current 15% rate expires in 2010."

The Wall Street Journal, citing none other than Sen. Joe Biden, editorializes today that the middle class will be hammered if Barack Obama wins the White House.

From a WSJ editorial:

Just as Bill Clinton promised a "middle-class tax cut" in 1992 only to raise taxes on the middle class in 1993, Mr. Obama will quickly find that his tax-revenue math doesn't add up. Add in the demands on Capitol Hill to spend more and to offset the Alternative Minimum Tax, and our bet is that even $150,000 would soon prove to be a moving tax target. Remember when the AMT was only supposed to hit 21 millionaires? Next year, without relief, it could hit 26 million taxpayers. Tax increases always hit the middle class because that's where the money is.

WashingtonWatch.com has a list of House and Senate members who voted for a law that prevented states from regulating credit default swaps. "This set the stage for the market in 'financial derivatives' that are a big part of what is causing the economic meltdown today," according to WashingtonWatch.com

The Pottstown Mercury has endorsed Republican Stephen Fuhs for the 11th state Senate Disrict, which covers most of Berks County.

Fuhs is the reform candidate seeking to unseat state Sen. Mike O'Pake, who has seved in the Legislature for 40 years.

From the newspaper's endorsement editorial:

The race for Berks County's 11th state Senate District features Reading City Councilman Stephen Fuhs challenging incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael O'Pake, who has held the seat since 1972.

O'Pake has accomplished laudable things in the Senate, most notably his work for prescription drug assistance for senior citizens (PACE) and health insurance for children (CHIP), but in recent years he has shown his alliances more than once to the systemic problems in Harrisburg. He voted for the pay raise in 2005 and supported a state budget proposal this year that held known deficits before it was even signed. He was on the board of the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency where excessive spending on gifts and lobbyists was exposed.

Although he claims to support tax reform, O'Pake favors his own plan rather than championing support for the property tax elimination bill formerly known as the Commonwealth Caucus Plan.Fuhs, who has a background in business and the Secret Service, supports the tax elimination plan and reducing state business taxes.

It's time for a change: We endorse Stephen Fuhs in the 11th District.

The newspaper is also endorsing state Rep. Tom Quigley for re-election in the 146th state House District.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

The Associated Press has been running highlights of newspaper endorsements from across the country. Here is a sampling of endorsements for John McCain:

The Cincinnati Enquirer:

This is a time for a president with deep experience and proven character, a president who thrives in the great, good, honest middle ground in which most Americans live, a president forthright enough to tell us what we'd rather not hear, a president with the courage to follow his convictions and the grit to persevere.

This is Sen. John McCain's time. ...

McCain offers up his compelling biography as a war hero, his admirable candor and his centrist independence in an increasingly polarized political environment. A McCain administration would chart a wiser course on the economy than one led by his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. McCain's campaign has recently found a sharp focus on economic and tax issues, allowing voters to draw clear distinctions with policies Obama would pursue.

And as president, McCain would fill the need for some semblance of partisan balance in Washington, keeping what promises to be a more heavily Democratic Congress from running roughshod on business policy, unions, free trade, health care and more. ...

Obama's record lies to the left of most Americans, yet he is running as a centrist who can reconcile a range of viewpoints. But can we have confidence he will govern from the middle? Will he even need to, or be able to, with a Congress heavily controlled by Democrats, perhaps with a filibuster-proof Senate?

The Eagle-Tribune of Lawrence, Mass.:

On domestic matters, there are fundamental philosophical differences between McCain and his opponent, Democrat Barack Obama. In simplest terms, McCain stands for using government policy to help people make their own way in the world. Obama wants to take from those who have achieved success and give to those who have not in his own words, to "spread the wealth around."

Obama's tax proposals would raise taxes on those with incomes over $250,000. Those people, too often derided as "the rich," are the ones creating the jobs many of the rest of us need to earn our daily bread.

It is important to note here the significance of Obama's candidacy, the first credible run at the presidency by an African American. That alone is an important change for our country, one for which Obama should be congratulated. But we ask voters to neither support nor reject Obama on those grounds alone.

The Arizona Republic:

Regarding foreign policy, no contemporary American statesman is more prepared than McCain to assume the mantles of first diplomat and commander in chief. In the tradition of Harry S. Truman, McCain already has demonstrated a willingness to let the buck of responsibility stop at his desk.

No one elected McCain to stand virtually alone against three administrations over their use of power overseas , against President Reagan's ill-fated decision to send Marines to Lebanon in 1983; against President Clinton's decision to send U.S. troops to Somalia in 1993; and against President George W. Bush's decision 10 years later to send insufficient troops to Iraq. He fought Republicans and Democrats over irresponsibly sending troops into harm's way, and he fought Republicans over their equally irresponsible refusal to send enough troops to do the job. In all three instances, history has proved (too often tragically) that McCain's judgment was right.

Even McCain mischaracterizes his noble willingness to stand up and stand alone. He contends it is the "maverick" in him. Well, he's wrong about that. It is the leader in him.

In truth, the son and grandson of war admirals was never a good fit for the go-along, get-along comity of the U.S. Senate. The nation simply has not had an opportunity to elect a president this well prepared , and this willing, to be a world leader since Dwight Eisenhower.

The New Era in Lancaster, Pa.:

The question for voters is this: Who between the two candidates is most likely to bring about meaningful change? Since we don't have a crystal ball, the next best indicator is the candidates' records. And by most any objective standard, John McCain's record of standing up against the special interests — and his own party when he felt it was the right thing to do — suggests he is more likely to break from the Washington that many Americans have come to disdain (Congress' approval is, what, 10 percent?).

McCain's opponent, Barack Obama, on the other hand, is a young and gifted orator with a thin resume, unimpressive legislative record and scant history of bipartisanship. He is quite the politician's politician. Obama's real problem, though, is in the direction he would take the country.

Investor's Business Daily, one of the few media outlets that isn't openly campaigning for Barack Obama, makes the following observation in a new editorial: "A major newspaper suppresses damning video of Barack Obama partying with pro-terrorism radicals. Meanwhile, Obama punishes news outlets that do their jobs."

Is this a look at the future of news-gathering under an Obama regime? News outlets that cooperate with President Obama will get a seat at the table. Any opposition will be dealt with severely by the Obama regime.

From IBD's editorial:

John McCain has demanded that the L.A. Times release its videotape of a 2003 farewell party in Chicago at which Obama is said to have grandly toasted guest of honor Rashid Khalidi, the late PLO head Yasser Arafat's spokesman. (Ex-terrorist Bill Ayers may have been there too.)

But the Times apparently doesn't think Americans are entitled to see Obama praising a terrorist mouthpiece before they decide whether to make him president for four years. Similarly, major news outlets buried this week's story of Obama calling for "major redistributive change" in a newly discovered 2001 radio interview.

But if you think we've got an unholy alliance between liberal Democrats in Washington and this country's media elite now, just watch what happens if Obama becomes president with a Democratic Congress — especially if it features a filibuster-proof Senate.

Major Democratic congressional leaders like Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois, 2004 presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi want the reinstitution of the outdated, pre-Internet "Fairness Doctrine." They want to counter the news revolution in which blogs and talk radio have taken on the Big Three TV networks.

The Obama campaign claims Obama opposes a new Fairness Doctrine, but City Journal editor Brian C. Anderson doesn't think a President Obama would veto such a bill. Moreover, Obama and most Democrats want to impose more "local accountability" on broadcasters, "setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal," as Anderson notes.

The Guide offers comments on how committed lawmakers are to the elimination of property taxes and also lists PTCC endorsed candidates.

PTCC previously announced two major endorsements for the Pennsylvania Legislature. In the 11th Senate District, the group is supporting challenger Steve Fuhs. In the 50th House District, the group is backing challenger Greg Hopkins.

Pennsylvania taxpayers have demanded property tax relief for decades, but the Harrisburg politicians have failed them. If you send incumbents back to the Legislature, expect the same results.

Investor's Business Daily believes Barack Obama has gone to great lengths to foll Jewish voters and other supporters of Israel.

From an editorial in today's edition:

Barack Obama tells Israel's supporters he's on their side. But he's using the playbook of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian terrorist who said one thing to the West and another to the radicals who supported him.

The newspaper cautions voters about electing a man who is willing to turn his back on America's strongest ally in the Middle East.

More from the editorial:

This should be enough for Obama supporters who stand behind Israel to rethink their vote. Those concerned about honesty and integrity should do the same, since Obama has sworn to be a friend of Israel.

Obama's deception reminds us of the way that Arafat tolerated Israel when talking to the Western media, but had the tongue of a terrorist when speaking in Arabic to radical Palestinian elements. Arafat said what he needed to say to keep his position of power. Obama will say anything to get elected, and then do another to achieve his goal of cutting off oxygen to Israel, the only freely elected government and U.S. friend in the region, outside of the newly formed Iraq.

The Republican Committee of Chester County has filed a complaint with the county District Attorney alleging that at least seven Democrats have voted in both Chester County and in New Jersey in the same election.

From the release:

WEST CHESTER - A complaint was lodged today with the Chester County District Attorney's office after evidence was found that seven Democrats have been voting in the county and also in New Jersey in the same elections.

"Voting twice is a clear violation of the federal election laws and can't be tolerated," said Skip Brion, chairman of the Republican Committee of Chester County. "The evidence we have points to outright voter fraud."

The letter said, "I bring to your attention what appears to be illegal conduct on the part of seven registered Democrats who apparently, in addition to being registered and voting in various counties in New Jersey, have also registered and voted in Chester County in the same elections. As you will note, this conduct has been ongoing for quite some time for some and more recent for others."

The punishment for voting more than once in an election is a maximum $10,000 fine and up to five years in prison or both.

Say goodbye to more American jobs of Barack Obama is elected president and Democrats expand their majority in Congress, says Peter A. List of EmployerReport.com

"Very few Americans realize that Democrats have become the bought-and-paid for tool of labor union bosses," says List, a former union activist. "If elected, these politicians plan to repay their union backers big time."

List continues: Unfortunately, too few American voters realize that Democrats plan to effectively strip workers of their right to decide on unionization through a secret-ballot election by passing the misleadingly-named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) within the first few weeks of an Obama presidency.

I am neither so ambitious nor self-confident that I could share and disseminate the thoughts and vision of our nation's most prominent historical luminaries who founded this great nation only 232 years ago regarding the forthcoming election. I'm confident, however, that there are a few certainties we could assume by knowing their histories and the ideas upon which they acted.

The first idea of Manifest Destiny led our founders westward across the Atlantic and inevitably to the colonization and expansion of a new American continent. Largely, these efforts were the result of the collective initiatives of these men to free themselves from both religious and financial restraint from a monarchical aristocracy. In their daring leadership, they drafted and signed the Constitution — an act which put their lives on the line for the prospect of a free and sovereign democracy with a small central government ruled by the people.

Since then, our leaders in the Democratic party have yielded much of our nation's authority to the United Nations, usurped the powers from the people in creating a central government legions of times larger than the Founders would have envisioned, through taxation have adopted the vision of a quasi-Eurosocialistic wealth redistribution system, and have sacrificed courage of conviction for political positioning and influence.

While fighting for our country and the maintaining of the conservative founding principals, John McCain sought public office as the means of extending and preserving the ideals shared among our forefathers. Examples like John Adams, Sam Adams, John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, and General George Washington just to name a few, all stood for — and some fought for those conservative values. John McCain shares that courage of duty and service. For his efforts, George Washington was unanimously chosen to lead our nation as its first president.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, was a community organizer with organizations such as ACORN and chose not to fund our troops at war. This position was criticized even by his running mate, Joe Biden. Failure to fund our troops at war while interested in becoming our nation's commander-in-chief is hardly the leadership that would have led to the unanimity which elected George Washington.

Analysis of the agenda which the Obama-Biden ticket brings to the table clearly illustrates one of socialism. Recent statements of wealth redistribution, higher taxes, nationalized health care, and increased free-market regulation as well as a movement towards globalism are only small potatoes in the grand schematic in the Communist Manifesto. This is a far cry from Manifest Destiny.

The Obama camp maintains that they truly do represent change. This is their campaign's one-word mantra. Is the change he brings good for America? Is changing us back into the same Euro-socialist country our forefathers fought against what we want? This is not progressive change — it's regressive!

In my opinion, the endorsement of the nation's forefathers would belong to John McCain. Proven leadership, service, courage of conviction, and a platform of continuing the vision outlined by our nation's Founding Founders.

Some 232 years ago our nation was founded in tough times by proven leaders. With Barack Obama as President, that all changes.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review is urging Pennsylvania voters to reject a request by the Rendell Administration to borrow $400 million for water and sewer projects.

From an editorial in today's edition:

The language of the referendum is too vague. And its proceeds are ripe for political machinations. The money is tied to no specific project. What's to prevent Gov. Ed Rendell or legislative friends of the nearly half-billion dollars in new borrowing to direct this money to pet "economic development" projects in, say, the Poconos?

So, we're "against" infrastructure help, right? Wrong. It's just that there are better ways to finance these vital upgrades without yet again diving into the taxpayers' pockets so deep that the soles of their feet are cut.

Government-types are delusional if they don't think there's $400 million in state budget waste. And what about all that glorious be-all and end-all money from slots machines?

With one week to go before Election Day, a 2001 tape of Obama surfaces that outlines his social agenda to "spread the wealth" by using "tax cuts" to redistribute income and create a larger welfare state in the U.S.

With Obama in the White House and a larger Democratic Party majority in the U.S. Senate, there is nothing to stop the lurch toward socialism.

An editorial in today's New York Post exposes Obama's not-so-hidden agenda.

Monday, October 27, 2008

Arthur Laffer, co-author of "The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy -- If We Let it Happen," gives us a sneak peak at the U.S. economy under President Barack Obama and a Democratically-controlled Congress led Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

It's not pretty.

From an op-ed Laffler wrote for The Wall Street Journal:

No one likes to see people lose their homes when housing prices fall and they can't afford to pay their mortgages; nor does any one of us enjoy watching banks go belly-up for making subprime loans without enough equity. But the taxpayers had nothing to do with either side of the mortgage transaction. If the house's value had appreciated, believe you me the overleveraged homeowner and the overly aggressive bank would never have shared their gain with taxpayers. Housing price declines and their consequences are signals to the market to stop building so many houses, pure and simple.

But here's the rub. Now enter the government and the prospects of a kinder and gentler economy. To alleviate the obvious hardships to both homeowners and banks, the government commits to buy mortgages and inject capital into banks, which on the face of it seems like a very nice thing to do. But unfortunately in this world there is no tooth fairy. And the government doesn't create anything; it just redistributes. Whenever the government bails someone out of trouble, they always put someone into trouble, plus of course a toll for the troll. Every $100 billion in bailout requires at least $130 billion in taxes, where the $30 billion extra is the cost of getting government involved.

If you don't believe me, just watch how Congress and Barney Frank run the banks. If you thought they did a bad job running the post office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the military, just wait till you see what they'll do with Wall Street.

Some 14 months ago, the projected deficit for the 2008 fiscal year was about 0.6% of GDP. With the $170 billion stimulus package last March, the add-ons to housing and agriculture bills, and the slowdown in tax receipts, the deficit for 2008 actually came in at 3.2% of GDP, with the 2009 deficit projected at 3.8% of GDP. And this is just the beginning.

The net national debt in 2001 was at a 20-year low of about 35% of GDP, and today it stands at 50% of GDP. But this 50% number makes no allowance for anything resulting from the over $5.2 trillion guarantee of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac assets, or the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Nor does the 50% number include any of the asset swaps done by the Federal Reserve when they bailed out Bear Stearns, AIG and others.

But the government isn't finished. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- and yes, even Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke -- are preparing for a new $300 billion stimulus package in the next Congress. Each of these actions separately increases the tax burden on the economy and does nothing to encourage economic growth. Giving more money to people when they fail and taking more money away from people when they work doesn't increase work. And the stock market knows it.

Robert Carroll, former deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis at the U.S. Treasury, and now vice president for economic policy at the Tax Foundation, examines John McCain's health care plan and comes to some interesting conclusions.

Despite the Obama propaganda, the McCain plan would benefit nearly every segment of the U.S. population, Carroll argues.

Salena Zito of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review has an interesting post today about where popular radio talk show host Glenn Beck stands on the 2008 presidential race.

Beck has endorsed Sarah Palin (and by extension, John McCain).

Beck says he considered all the presidential candidates and found them all lacking:

I don't see any of them that actually believe in you, who actually is you, except Sarah Palin. So I'm going to pull the lever for John McCain and let the Lord sort it out. I want somebody that just, whose compass points north. Even though all these candidates think their compass points north, it doesn't. It's pointing east and some places it's pointing south. In Barack Obama it is pointing south. He says that it's pointing north, it's to you, but it's not. It's to the government, it's to Washington, it's to the special interests. John McCain I think points somewhere maybe northeast. It's in the right direction but it's not right. Sarah Palin points to you. I'm casting my vote for Sarah Palin.

Baseball could crown a new champion tonight if the Philadelphia Phillies beat the Tampa Rays. The Phightin' Phils hold a 3-1 series lead. Teams leading 3-1 after four games have an 85% chance of taking the Series.

Phillies fans would like to wrap it up tonight at home instead of sending the series back to Tampa. Go Phillies!

It's never a good sign when the most widely-read newspaper in your own backyard backs your opponent.

The Allentown Morning Call is urging Pennsylvania voters to re-elect Republican Attorney General Tom Corbett over Democrat John Morganelli, the district attorney of Northampton County.

From the newspaper's endorsement editorial:

The Morning Call looked for a way to recommend that John Morganelli be elected state attorney general on Nov. 4 ... But in seeking to oust Republican incumbent Tom Corbett, the Democrat from Bethlehem did not mount the most effective campaign.

The newspaper says Morganelli's entire campaign is based on the charge that Corbett botched the Bonusgate corruption investigation involving use of taxpayer money for political campaign work.

More from the editorial:

Is it tainted, as Mr. Morganelli says? The proof will be in its final findings, and Pennsylvanians have a big stake in its completion because nothing less than the integrity of state government (and the proper use of their tax dollars) is at stake.

Mr. Corbett is the best person to see it through, and The Morning Call recommends his re-election.

The Associated Press is compiling newspaper endorsements from across the country on the presidential race. Here is a sampling of newspapers endorsing Sen. John McCain.

The Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch:

Experience, particularly in international and military affairs, is a significant issue at the top of the tickets. These Editorial Pages have long maintained that national security ranks as the most important responsibility of any American president. And by this measure, John McCain is the clear and unambiguous choice in 2008. The world remains a very dangerous place. McCain has demonstrated the courage and sound judgment needed to protect the free people of this nation, and assist those fighting for freedom around the world.

The Detroit News:

"Financial markets that rose to incredible heights without an ethical foundation have brought the economy to the brink of collapse. Tyrants emboldened by the often heavy-handed and inept foreign policy of the Bush administration have established rogue regimes in every corner of the world to threaten U.S. interests and security."

"John McCain has what it takes to lead America in these very uncertain times."

"He has been among the Senate's most independent members, repeatedly eschewing ideology to work across the aisle for bipartisan agreements. He has been willing to buck his own party, as he did in leading the push for campaign finance reform, and to rise above political gamesmanship, as he did in negotiating a compromise that broke the judicial nominee logjam."

McCook (Neb.) Daily Gazette:

"Obama is leading in the polls, and his personal confidence and charisma is appealing.

"But the majority of southwest Nebraskans and northwest Kansans don't want to see the country shift to the left, the direction Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, would take it, especially as it relates to the Supreme Court.

"For that reason, the McCook Daily Gazette is endorsing Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin for president and vice president."

The (Sioux Falls, S.D.) Argus Leader:

At a time when both houses of Congress are controlled by the Democratic Party, and by margins that are likely to increase after this year's elections, McCain has the best chance to bridge the distressingly wide partisan divides that have developed in recent years while preserving some sense of moderation.

The State of Columbia, S.C.:

"Barack Obama is an inspiring and even transformational figure. He has the intellect and the temperament to lead the nation well in troubled times. On some issues, such as health care, we prefer his proposals to Sen. McCain's. If anyone else had won the Republican nomination, we would be endorsing Sen. Obama today.

"But we prefer Sen. McCain. First and foremost, he is far better prepared not only to be commander in chief, but to lead the nation as it deals with a complex array of global challenges, from Iran to North Korea, from Russia to Venezuela."

Pennsylvania's biggest newspaper has endorsed Republican Lance Rogers for the open seat in the 17th state Senate District.

From The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial:

In the 17th District, comprising portions of Montgomery and Delaware Counties, the retirement of Democratic Sen. Constance Williams has created an open seat.

The Republican candidate is Lance Rogers, 34, a Lower Merion commissioner and media attorney (disclosure: he has worked on cases for The Inquirer). The Democrat is State Rep. Daylin Leach, 47, a progressive who has been active in government reform efforts and sponsored the law to foster expanded screening for breast cancer.

Our endorsement goes to LANCE ROGERS. He could bring a fresh approach to the Senate on issues such as gun control and expanded health-care coverage, on which he pledges not to walk lock-step with the GOP.

The 17th Senate District includes Bridgeport, Conshohocken, East Norriton, Lower Merion, Narberth, Norristown, Plymouth, Upper Merion and West Conshohocken in Montgomery County and Haverford and Radnor in Delaware County.

In response to recent comments by U.S. Congressman John Murtha that his constituents are racists and/or rednecks if they don't vote for Barack Obama, radio host and political commentator Doug Giles offers his own guide to Pennsylvania voters.

From Giles' column:

I have a question for my readers: Do you think Murtha works on being consistently ridiculous or does it come naturally? I think it's a natural gifting that's right up there with Gary Busey's brilliance.

Look, if not buying Barack's gobbledygook makes one a redneck then all I have to say is ... Yee-frickin'-haw! Slap some Charlie Daniels on the CD player, boil some crawdads and pass the moonshine, Jedediah, because I too ain't buying what he's a sellin'.

Here's a sampling from Giles designed to help Pennsylvania voters decided where they stand.

* If you think "socialism" when you hear Barack say "change," then you might be a redneck.

* If you think there's nothing about San Francisco that a rise in the ocean level could not cure, then you might be a redneck.

* If you think slick politicians who rise from a political dung heap like Chicago might not be the fresh breeze they purport to be, then you might be a redneck.

* If you think Michael Moore is John Murtha and Joy Behar's love child, then you might be a redneck.

* If you actually believe Obama's close buddy Bill Ayers when he says he's an anarchist, a Marxist and is unashamed of bombing the Pentagon and the Capitol building, then you might be a redneck.

* If you think Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for 20 years, is more unhinged than a spider monkey that just had turpentine poured on its butt, then you might be a redneck.

Read the full list, "Pennsylvanian Voters: You Might Be a Redneck If ..." at Gile's Web site, http://clashradio.com/

Pennsylvania voters can send a strong message to Harrisburg on Nov. 4 by electing a Republican majority to the state House and enlarging the GOP majority in the state Senate. That's the only way to end the free-spending of the Rendell Administration and help push reform measures blocked by Bill DeWeese and the Democrats.

As the 2007-2008 legislative session concludes, reformers in Harrisburg can list few true accomplishments that have fundamentally altered the atmosphere in Harrisburg. We failed to restrict cronyism and end "pay-to-play," two aspects of an old boy network that continues to run rampant in the halls of the Capitol.

In late September, state Reps. Mike Turzai (R-Allegheny), Glen Grell (R-Cumberland), Robert Godshall (R-Montgomery) and I introduced a package of bills, along with legislation previously introduced by Rep. Craig Dally (R-Northampton), to end the "Pay-to-Play" mindset that has descended on Harrisburg during the Rendell administration. However, House Democrats turned their backs on this attempt at sweeping reform of blatant governmental abuses.

What were we trying to accomplish with this legislation? Over the last two years, the governor has utilized loopholes in state laws regulating how contracts for the purchase of goods and professional services are issued. Simply put, our legislation sought to prevent the governor from awarding lucrative no-bid contracts to political supporters and former associates.

The first glaring example of this was revealed last year with the award of a contract for more than $1 million to the governor's former law firm Ballard Spahr under the "emergency provisions" of the procurement code. Taxpayers footed the bill for legal work to write the law which would have imposed tolls on the I-80 federal highway and increased the very unpopular Pittsburgh drink tax. Not only was this contract improper in light of the dozens of lawyers employed by the governor, the Department of Transportation, and the four legislative caucuses, but there was not anything resembling an "emergency" to justify the award of this no-bid contract to the law firm which currently employs the governor's former chief of staff, former deputy chief of staff, and the husband of the woman the governor chose as State Treasurer.

The governor's questionable no-bid handouts also resulted in a computer systems company winning the contract for a data powerhouse with the Department of General Services. This contract was extended without allowing competitors to bid on the contract, which is worth more than $4 million. This no-bid award was justified on the grounds it was in "the best interest of the Commonwealth," even though there were other service providers who wanted to submit a bid on the project, but they never found out about this opportunity until after the contract was extended.

Finally, the no-bid reward process hit a new low this year when the governor's Office of General Counsel gave a contract without competitive bidding to a Texas law firm to handle a lucrative lawsuit on behalf of the Commonwealth against a drug manufacturer. This same firm donated $26,000 to the governor's last campaign in 2006, provided the use of a personal jet worth $14,000, and donated another $10,000 to the Democratic Governors Association which happened to be headed by Rendell at the time. Was this just a coincidence?

These are not just petty examples of the unbridled use of power in the Capitol. Attorney General Tom Corbett has uncovered allegations of the assignment of contracts worth millions of dollars by both House caucuses which were awarded on a no-bid basis. Our legislation would be an important step to improve transparency in the operations of state government, but would also result in savings to taxpayers by obtaining competitive bids from prospective vendors.

We attached three of our bills as amendments to a procurement code bill on the House calendar, but House Democrats led my Majority Leader Bill DeWeese ignored these good government measures at a time when people have had it with the cronyism in Harrisburg.

DeWeese and House Democrats shunned the outcry to clean up Harrisburg in the most substantive way in the last two years. Based on this record, does anyone really believe Rep. DeWeese and the House Democrats can be leaders for reform in the Capitol.

State Rep. Doug Reichley is a Republican who represents the 134th House District in Berks and Lehigh counties.

The Letter to the Editor below was originally published in The Mercury. The Montgomery County writer urges fellow Pennsylvania residents to carefully consider whether they want to give Gov. Ed Rendell more money to spend by approving a referendum question on Nov. 4 to allow the stat to borrow $400 million for water/sewer projects.

Since Rendell took office in 2003, the General Fund budget has risen by $7 billion and state borrowing has increased by another $3 billion. Rendell wants more money to hand out. I say NO!

Should Pa. go deeper in debt?

When you enter the voting booth on Nov. 4, you will not only be selecting leaders but also asked to say “yes” or “no” to a $400 million indebtedness. If approved, the money will be used to support water and sewage systems assistance in Pennsylvania. This referendum is no different than most in the past as it is poorly advertised and catches voters at a vulnerable time in the voting booth.

At present, there are approximately 2,000 drinking water systems in Pennsylvania and about 1,000 waste water systems. It is estimated that it would take in excess of $18 billion to bring all these systems up to par, so the $400 million is only a drop in the bucket (no pun intended).

At the federal level, there has been much discussion on funding the entire U.S. infrastructure as it would certainly provide lots of jobs and help jump start a sagging economy.

The state budget, passed only weeks ago, is already showing signs of program cuts and eliminations due to projected deficits in income next year. We need to give careful consideration to this question as most assuredly we need help with this infrastructure, but is it time to just put on a Band-aid?

Before you consider voting for Barack Obama, read the book "Liberal Fascism" to get a glipse of what this country will look like under a far-left president and a far-left Congess run by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Obama supporters and Democrats are at odds with Independents and undecided voters when it comes to clamping down on free speech over the air waves, according to a just-released ATI-News/Zogby poll. "Barack Obama has shown a stunning lack of tolerance for free speech throughout the course of this campaign," said ATI-News president Brad O'Leary. "His presidency, combined with supermajorities for Democrats in Congress would almost certainly bring back the so-called 'Fairness Doctrine' and allow the Democrats to snuff out any broadcasters with whom they disagree."

Total Pageviews

Why Politics Matter

“Politics, the crooked timber of our communal lives, dominates everything because, in the end, everything – high and low and, most especially, high – lives or dies by politics. You can have the most advanced and efflorescent of cultures. Get your politics wrong, however, and everything stands to be swept away. This is not ancient history. This is Germany 1933.” –– Charles Krauthammer

ShareThis

About Me

Tony A. Phyrillas is a leading conservative columnist, commentator and blogger based in Pennsylvania.
A veteran newspaperman with 33 years experience as a reporter, editor, photographer and columnist, Phyrillas received a first place award in 2010 for best column from the Pennsylvania Associated Press Managing Editors and a first place award in 2007 for Best Opinion Column from Suburban Newspapers of America. He was recognized for column writing in 2007 by the Society of Professional Journalists, Keystone Chapter and in 2006 by the SPJ Greater Philadelphia Chapter.
Phyrillas is ranked among the most influential political bloggers in Pennsylvania by BlogNetNews.com.
Odyssey: The World of Greece magazine named Phyrillas one of the leading Greek-American bloggers in the world.
A Penn State University graduate, Phyrillas is the editor/content manager of The Mercury, a two-time Pulitzer Prize-winning daily newspaper in Pottstown, Pa.
Phyrillas made frequent appearances on talk radio and as a panelist on the "Journalists Roundtable" program on the Pennsylvania Cable Network.
He co-hosted a weekly radio program on WPAZ 1370 AM for 2 years.